It absolutely does matter, as you are bound by the dogmatic proclamations of your Pope over and above your own theology (hence the very really tension between the ECCs and the RCC, which I know you are well aware of and deal with in your own life), in conformity with this ecclesiology that sees the Roman Pope as the infallible head of the whole church and all that stuff.

How are we subject to it? We do not celebrate the Immaculate Conception as a feast day. We still stick to the December 9th "Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne". The conflict arises from self proclaimed experts on the internet who insist that we need to accept IC. We don't reject IC, but I don't know if you can say we accept it if it is not even on our Liturgical Calendar.

choy, I hope you realize how weak this reads.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him.

Your experience must be very limited then. I recall many times when Orthodox have insisted on "Roman Catholic" and "Latin Catholic" being interchangeable. (I can give examples if you'd like.)

But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

I can't say "why" universally, but regarding my own close acquaintances I would say that they are actually trying (albeit going about it in a questionable way) to make the point that it's wrong to use "Roman Catholics" to mean everyone in communion with Rome.

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?

That's a good question. The usual answer is that you should call us "Catholics", but I can understand your objections to that. So perhaps it would be best you and like-minded persons to say "Latin and Eastern Catholics" or something of that sort.

Besides, is it against Orthodoxy to believe that the Theotokos was filled with God's grace from the moment of her conception? The only argument is about the exemption from Original Sin. Again, my own opinions aside on that matter, but since the Latin theology does profess Original Sin as their understanding of the Fall, then it is necessary to define it and manifest as the Immaculate Concepcion.

Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.

I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.

I really don't mean to offend, but it seems the exact opposite to me. As Αριστοκλής pointed out, Choy's defense of the ECs relation to Rome, which I take it is fairly mainstream as far as EC defenses go (i.e., he's certainly not the first one I've heard that from), reads rather weak. At least the Latins believe in their wrong dogma, rather than paying lip-service to it as appropriate for them but not actually correct.

Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.

Do you think the First Ecumenical Council was for the Arians?

Τhe arians were inside the Church, the protestants were outside.

Protestants are Christians, which confuse people within the Church. Even today you'd see Catholics, and I bet even some Orthodox, buy into some Protestant teachings. Its better for the Church to clearly state what she teaches over the heresy coming from outside. Even though I personally don't totally agree with IC, I fully understand the reason why the Church had to dogmatize it. I know the Orthodox said it wasn't necessary to dogmatize it, but they weren't hit as hard with the Protestant Reformation as the West was.

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch. Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch. Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch. Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

No, we're just "The Catholic Church".

Yes, and we are just "The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," according to St. Raphael of Brooklyn. But we recognize that others claim this title and so we accept the fact that in certain contexts an adjective will be used to distinguish us from them, and we don't demand that everyone refer to us by a title whose use amounts to the admission that we are the one true Church.

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch. Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?

I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?

I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."

But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?

« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 02:18:02 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?

I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."

But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oreintal Orthodox don't you?

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?

I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."

But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?

Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?

I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."

But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?

Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.

I was addressing Cyrillic. But thanks for chipping in, anyway.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?

I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."

But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?

Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.

I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.

I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.

I really don't mean to offend, but it seems the exact opposite to me.

What, Catholic with a minus?

Sure, I guess would make sense within the context in which I originally wrote that (the difference between believing in something vs. not believing in it but letting others do so; I guess you could call that a "minus" in that it's "Catholic, minus a particular belief of the Latin church that you don't share", though this is not what I originally intended when I wrote that).

Yes, and we are just "The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," according to St. Raphael of Brooklyn. But we recognize that others claim this title and so we accept the fact that in certain contexts an adjective will be used to distinguish us from them, and we don't demand that everyone refer to us by a title whose use amounts to the admission that we are the one true Church.

We're not preventing you from calling yourselves whatever. That is the title which our bishops have assigned for ourselves regardless.

Sure, I guess would make sense within the context in which I originally wrote that (the difference between believing in something vs. not believing in it but letting others do so; I guess you could call that a "minus" in that it's "Catholic, minus a particular belief of the Latin church that you don't share", though this is not what I originally intended when I wrote that).

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch. Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

No, we're just "The Catholic Church".

I quite understand the idea that we who are in communion with Rome should be called "Catholics" rather than "Roman Catholics". But what I don't get is that people still use "Roman Catholics" but make it synonymous with "Latin Catholic", often by fiat.

Yes, and we are just "The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," according to St. Raphael of Brooklyn. But we recognize that others claim this title and so we accept the fact that in certain contexts an adjective will be used to distinguish us from them, and we don't demand that everyone refer to us by a title whose use amounts to the admission that we are the one true Church.

We're not preventing you from calling yourselves whatever. That is the title which our bishops have assigned for ourselves regardless.

I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?

I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?

So the Orthodox should stop using "Catholic" because no one but themselves refers to them as Catholic. Do you agree?

I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere. Seems to me that Orthodox want to "have their cake and eat it too", as it were: they object to us being called "Catholic", and at the same time they also feel perfectly free to use "Roman Catholic" interchangeably with "Latin Catholic".

I've pointed out before (but to no avail of course) that this forum's description says "Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome)." thus implying that "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".

If Roman Catholic ≠ Latin Catholic, then does that mean that Latin Catholics are not Roman Catholic?

It seems like you guys are twisting around every which way to avoid the association that your forefathers willingly took on by being united with Rome in the first place (i.e., the older documents found in the Vatican itself before the modern PC-ism took over that use what are now bad words like "uniate", etc). If you want so badly to be distinguished from Rome, then why are you part of a church that has Rome at the center of its ecclesiology and teaching authority? If I wanted to distance myself from some undesirable group (e.g., the "Coptic" idiot who made the amateurish anti-Islam film and all his evangelical cronies), it'd be pretty silly of me to defend my relation to it, much less affirm union with it, and even much less show up at meetings in defense of it and for the propagation of union with it among people who do not accept such things. Yet Eastern Catholics do all of these things, because to not do them threatens their "Catholicity" (read: their Rome-centered ecclesiology that forces them into the schizophrenic relation they are forced to live in, claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy).

Yet Eastern Catholics do all of these things, because to not do them threatens their "Catholicity" (read: their Rome-centered ecclesiology that forces them into the schizophrenic relation they are forced to live in, claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy).

Overgeneralization. "Orthodox in union with Rome" only applies to a fraction of Eastern Catholics of Byzantine Rite, and an even smaller fraction of Eastern (Oriental) Catholics of non-Byzantine Rite.

I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?

So the Orthodox should stop using "Catholic" because no one but themselves refers to them as Catholic. Do you agree?

No. I'm not asking you to stop calling yourselves Catholic. I'm asking you to stop complaining when others qualify that term in relation to you. Peter J has offered "Latin and Eastern Catholics," which is unwieldy, but at least acknowledges the problem. What those who insist on just "Catholics" are doing is comparable to a hypothetical Orthodox Christian who thinks the Orthodox are the only true Christians and therefore refuses to call the Orthodox Church anything but the Christian Church and gets offended when other people do not follow him in this.

What those who insist on just "Catholics" are doing is comparable to a hypothetical Orthodox Christian who thinks the Orthodox are the only true Christians and therefore refuses to call the Orthodox Church anything but the Christian Church and gets offended when other people do not follow him in this.

Hmm, I wonder what ialmisry is doing these days. Time was, he was one of the most regular contributors here.